1997 (3) TMI 281

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion 305/77 which notification for convenience of reference is reproduced below: [3]. Loan licence - In exercise of the powers conferred by rule 174A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary and expedient in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts from the operation of rule 174 of the said rules every manufacturer who gets his goods manufactured on his account from any other person, subject to the conditions that the said manufacturer authorises the person, who actually manufactures or fabricates the said goods to comply with all procedural formalities under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) and the rules made thereunder, in respect of the goods manufactured on b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n'ble Supreme Court in the case of MRF Ltd. reported in 1996 (77) E.L.T. 433. He has pleaded that the learned lower authority did not have the benefit of MRF judgment under which the abatement of interest on receivables and turnover tax has been specifically allowed. So far as the equalised freight is concerned the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Tyre International has clearly held that the abatement is allowable. He has pleaded that the learned lower authority has held since the appellants are the manufacturers and value has to be in terms of Section 4(2) of the Valuation Rules. He has pleaded that since M/s. HLL has been held to be the manufacturers for the purpose of payment of duty in terms of Notification 305/77 the benefit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the cost of the raw materials and the job charges and the sale price of the supplier of the raw materials is not to be taken as the basis when the job work done is on principal to principal basis. In the present case these aspects have not been gone into. Both the assessee and the Revenue in terms of this notification have treated the goods as having been manufactured for M/s. HLL and have adopted the sale price of M/s. HLL for this purpose. We would like to observe that unless in terms of the settled decision in law M/s. HLL and the appellant can be treated as related persons the question of taking the sale price of M/s. HLL for assessment purpose will not arise. In the present case the price of M/s. HLL is the basis is not contested b....